I was just wondering if this has now been established as unshakable truth and therefore no longer needs to be discussed?

Sorry for the typo in the title...

Actually it should have been:
GW Bish de wurst prisedant in US hisdore

You might think I'd respond with a giant flame thrower, but I won't. I do need to point out what others have though...this thread is redundant. However:

As much as you or anyone disagrees with GWB...as much "damage" as you think he's done...it's not possible to make a historical judgement while the man's in office, nor do I see the reason for attempting to other than to make yourself feel better about your own political views.

I mean, I'm sure it's fun for your side of the stadium to scream "GOOOOAAAALLLL" whenever something bad happens in US political affairs or whenever Bush and company actually do make a bad move, but I beyond the entertainment value I just don't see it.

And objectively, it's a "long tough road to hoe" argument anyway. There are any number of things you can point to and say you disagree with. But there are also any number of things that have gone well during the Bush Presidency, namely the economy and the lack of terror attacks on the United States since 9/11. I'd also think that you could at least acknowledge that many people believe the President's tax cuts were good policy, even if you don't.

The bottom line is that trying to make this case is both impossible at this point and just silly. But enjoy!

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You might think I'd respond with a giant flame thrower, but I won't. I do need to point out what others have though...this thread is redundant. However:

As much as you or anyone disagrees with GWB...as much "damage" as you think he's done...it's not possible to make a historical judgement while the man's in office, nor do I see the reason for attempting to other than to make yourself feel better about your own political views.

I mean, I'm sure it's fun for your side of the stadium to scream "GOOOOAAAALLLL" whenever something bad happens in US political affairs or whenever Bush and company actually do make a bad move, but I beyond the entertainment value I just don't see it.

And objectively, it's a "long tough road to hoe" argument anyway. There are any number of things you can point to and say you disagree with. But there are also any number of things that have gone well during the Bush Presidency, namely the economy and the lack of terror attacks on the United States since 9/11. I'd also think that you could at least acknowledge that many people believe the President's tax cuts were good policy, even if you don't.

The bottom line is that trying to make this case is both impossible at this point and just silly. But enjoy!

Terror:
Airpollution kills 5400 people in LA yearly.
Terror killed 0 people in LA in the last couple of millenia.
Far more people die yearly because they can not afford healthcare than have died in all terror attacks put together in the last several centuries (war is not terror).
Economy:
Record trade deficit, record national debt, record dependence on foreign oil you don't think this will come back to bite us ever?
Education at all time low.
War creates an artificial economic boost for several industries i.e. oil companies, weapons manufacturers. The reason for GWB to be so war happy is that he knows if we stop the war this great war economy will immediately slow down. Clinton's economy was created in peacetime and yielded record surpluses which could have been used to make friends across the globe and promote the US' benevolence.
Terror has increased by 26%, several million people have been displaced and their livelihood destroyed.

We truly have poured a lot of gasoline on fires that could have been put out by pissing on them.

Terror:
Airpollution kills 5400 people in LA yearly.
Terror killed 0 people in LA in the last couple of millenia.
Far more people die yearly because they can not afford healthcare than have died in all terror attacks put together in the last several centuries (war is not terror).
Economy:
Record trade deficit, record national debt, record dependence on foreign oil you don't think this will come back to bite us ever?
Education at all time low.
War creates an artificial economic boost for several industries i.e. oil companies, weapons manufacturers. The reason for GWB to be so war happy is that he knows if we stop the war this great war economy will immediately slow down. Clinton's economy was created in peacetime and yielded record surpluses which could have been used to make friends across the globe and promote the US' benevolence.
Terror has increased by 26%, several million people have been displaced and their livelihood destroyed.

We truly have poured a lot of gasoline on fires that could have been put out by pissing on them.

What the hell are you talking about...?

Provide support for the Air Pollution claim and tell me how such pollution is Bush's fault. Look at the numbers and you'll find air quality is better in the US today than 20 years--or even 10 years ago.

The national debt has been rising for years, but I agree spending is out of control. The deficit itself is not at record levels and is now coming down. The trade deficit is high, but one of the reasons for that is that we are now a service-based ecnonomy, not an industrial one. Specifically, what should any President do to fix it?

"Education at an all time low." Not sure what the hell YOU are talking about or how you are measuring it. The NCLB has its issues, certainly...and I say that as an educator. But funding is 50% higher than it was when Bush took office.

War economy: So the only parts of the economy that have been good in the last six years are weapons manufacture and oil?

Clinton: I'll ask what I ask all liberals who praise Clinton's economy...what did he do, specifically, to aid it? And you realize unemployment is now within .5% of being as low as it was at it's LOWEST point during the Clinton Presidency? Also...you confuse good economic performance with deficits, which is a common mistake. The deficit in and of itself does not harm the economy in the short and mid term.

Finally, we experienced surpluses due to 1) economic growth that Clinton was fortunate enough to be President during...mostly due to the tech bubble and transition to a service/tech economy....and 2) controls imposed by the Republican Congress.

I'm not saying you have to agree with Bush actions nor I am even trying to pronounce him "better" than Clinton, I'm just saying that saying he's the worst in history at this point is, well, dumb.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Provide support for the Air Pollution claim and tell me how such pollution is Bush's fault. Look at the numbers and you'll find air quality is better in the US today than 20 years--or even 10 years ago.

Inaction. California is suing EPA over emission control. LA has worst air in since 1970 (LA times articles)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The national debt has been rising for years, but I agree spending is out of control. The deficit itself is not at record levels and is now coming down. The trade deficit is high, but one of the reasons for that is that we are now a service-based ecnonomy, not an industrial one. Specifically, what should any President do to fix it?

Dollar at it's lowest in years, (1Euro = 1.39$ 1Pound = 1.97 $. still we are importing more...this is a sign that there is some major problems. In the past lowering the Dollar has helped exports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

"Education at an all time low." Not sure what the hell YOU are talking about or how you are measuring it. The NCLB has its issues, certainly...and I say that as an educator. But funding is 50% higher than it was when Bush took office.

War economy: So the only parts of the economy that have been good in the last six years are weapons manufacture and oil?

Get yourself some history books, European ones about a little country called Germany in the 1930's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Clinton: I'll ask what I ask all liberals who praise Clinton's economy...what did he do, specifically, to aid it? And you realize unemployment is now within .5% of being as low as it was at it's LOWEST point during the Clinton Presidency? Also...you confuse good economic performance with deficits, which is a common mistake. The deficit in and of itself does not harm the economy in the short and mid term.

Finally, we experienced surpluses due to 1) economic growth that Clinton was fortunate enough to be President during...mostly due to the tech bubble and transition to a service/tech economy....and 2) controls imposed by the Republican Congress.

I'm not saying you have to agree with Bush actions nor I am even trying to pronounce him "better" than Clinton, I'm just saying that saying he's the worst in history at this point is, well, dumb.

I am desperate to find that one thing where I can go, "yeah that really worked" but even with vigilant research it seems impossible. This administration has proven that government is useless. I include all parties in this. Maybe the silver lining is that it will cause the demise of the Grand Old Party as a whole and it is already starting the biggest clean up effort of our environment, a global peace awareness and a reexamination of the US constitution. This is all positive.
GWB may have inadvertently caused the largest revolution and intellectual awakening of all time.

Get yourself some history books, European ones about a little country called Germany in the 1930's.

I am desperate to find that one thing where I can go, "yeah that really worked" but even with vigilant research it seems impossible. This administration has proven that government is useless. I include all parties in this. Maybe the silver lining is that it will cause the demise of the Grand Old Party as a whole and it is already starting the biggest clean up effort of our environment, a global peace awareness and a reexamination of the US constitution. This is all positive.
GWB may have inadvertently caused the largest revolution and intellectual awakening of all time.

1. And this is Bush's fault, even if true?

2. It's a sign of a lot of things...mostly not in any President's control. What should he or any President do?

3. Blah. It depends on what you mean by "education system." There are many factors. Our higher ed system draws students worldwide. We're in the top ten as far as adults with degrees. Also, from Wiki:

Quote:

The United Nations assigned an Education Index of 99.9 to the United States, ranking it number 1 in the world, a position it shares with about 20 other nations.[1] 76.6 million students were enrolled in K16 study. Of these, 72 percent aged 12 to 17 were judged academically "on track" for their age (enrolled in school at or above grade level). Of those enrolled in compulsory education, 5.2 million (10.4 percent) were attending private schools. Among the country's adult population, over 85 percent have completed high school and 27 percent have received a bachelor's degree or higher.

Of course, we do lag in Math and Science understanding. Some of it is the system, but a good portion of it, speaking as a teacher...is our culture. We have lower expectations for students, and more expectations for social life. Our attitude towards learning is different as well, than in say, Japan.

The point is, blaming this on one man is absurd. It's not like the "problem" such at is is new.

4. That doesn't even make sense. You didn't answer my question. You can't posibly believe that the economy only got better because we went to war.

5. Right, every problem we have is the GOP's fault. Jesus..this is getting comical. And really...of course you can't find something you agree with or that you think worked...you're polarized. Duh.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

2. It's a sign of a lot of things...mostly not in any President's control. What should he or any President do?

3. Blah. It depends on what you mean by "education system." There are many factors. Our higher ed system draws students worldwide. We're in the top ten as far as adults with degrees. Also, from Wiki:

Of course, we do lag in Math and Science understanding. Some of it is the system, but a good portion of it, speaking as a teacher...is our culture. We have lower expectations for students, and more expectations for social life. Our attitude towards learning is different as well, than in say, Japan.

The point is, blaming this on one man is absurd. It's not like the "problem" such at is is new.

4. That doesn't even make sense. You didn't answer my question. You can't posibly believe that the economy only got better because we went to war.

5. Right, every problem we have is the GOP's fault. Jesus..this is getting comical. And really...of course you can't find something you agree with or that you think worked...you're polarized. Duh.

What you're missing is that it can be their wrong or inaction on these issues also SDW.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

2. It's a sign of a lot of things...mostly not in any President's control. What should he or any President do?

3. Blah. It depends on what you mean by "education system." There are many factors. Our higher ed system draws students worldwide. We're in the top ten as far as adults with degrees. Also, from Wiki:

Of course, we do lag in Math and Science understanding. Some of it is the system, but a good portion of it, speaking as a teacher...is our culture. We have lower expectations for students, and more expectations for social life. Our attitude towards learning is different as well, than in say, Japan.

The point is, blaming this on one man is absurd. It's not like the "problem" such at is is new.

4. That doesn't even make sense. You didn't answer my question. You can't posibly believe that the economy only got better because we went to war.

5. Right, every problem we have is the GOP's fault. Jesus..this is getting comical. And really...of course you can't find something you agree with or that you think worked...you're polarized. Duh.

Try reading. It may expand your mind.
That you are a teacher is what is wrong with the system.

The value of federal contracts awarded without competitive bidding has soared since President Bush took office in 2000, according to a new study to be released Monday by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Federal contracting grew from $203 billion in fiscal 2000 to $377 billion by fiscal 2005. During the same period, the value of federal contracts awarded without competitive bidding more than doubled, from $67 billion to $145 billion, the study found. At the same time, government oversight of contracting has weakened, according to the study's author, Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the center and a former House Democratic aide.

For example, the Defense Department is responsible for 80 percent of the overall federal contract growth during the five years under study. But the number of federal civilians employed by the department declined by about 2,000 in the same period. As a result, contractors have increasingly stepped in to fill the void -- to help the government decide its needs, draft contracts awarded to other private firms and then monitor their performance, the study found.

Federal contracts are big money -- they represent about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, about the same amount as the automotive industry. And because a growing chunk of that money is being handed to private companies without competitive bidding, it raises questions about whether taxpayers are getting the best deal and whether the contracting process has grown corrupt, Lilly said.

"There are clear indications that serious contract abuse has become a widespread problem affecting programs and agencies across the entire government and involving tens of billions of dollars in federal funds annually," according to the study.

-- Lyndsey Layton

Look, for almost thirty years we've been hearing about how the liberals under our beds were going to steal our money in the night and spend it on social programs!. Creeping communism! Welfare mothers and their crack babies who don't want to work! ...and so on, and on. Well, we were too clever for them...we gave our hundreds of billions to the nice men who hold stock in Halliburton, so they could keep it safe in their offshore bank accounts.

"Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report,"

I know the financial/energy markets decry infrastructure costs and security risks, but that to be expected. I think that this example fits just as well with everything else we all now know about Iraq, that it was an opportunistic decision of a few businessmen who see only the business side of the whole thing. And when I say businessmen, I don't mean your small business owner.

"Two scholars, one a Nobel Prize winner, revisit their estimate of the true cost of the Iraq war – and find that $2 trillion was too low. They consider not only the current and future budgetary costs, but the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East."

In the City of LA alone, in last 13 years, there have been 4200 killings, 10,000+ attempted killings, 2024 carjackings (hijacking of private vehicles)....

Should my car break down in any unfamiliar urban neighborhood in any US city.. concern for my wellbeing would be far more oriented towards awareness of the local thug element than anything related to Mohammed X, Ahmed Y or Iqbal Z.

Whether the preferred killing method is planting a bomb, or spraying bullets.. its still terrorism. Guns were used in 95% of the killings cited above. Our love affair with the 2nd Amendment should not provide a comfort zone. Maybe we are pretending that the orgy of violence and death in urban America has nothing to do with terrorism because none of the organizations responsible cite "promotion of Islamism" and "jihad" as their raisons d'etre.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Whether the preferred killing method is planting a bomb, or spraying bullets.. its still terrorism. Guns were used in 95% of the killings cited above. Our love affair with the 2nd Amendment should not provide a comfort zone. Maybe we are pretending that the orgy of violence and death in urban America has nothing to do with terrorism because none of the organizations responsible cite "promotion of Islamism" and "jihad" as their raisons d'etre.

The buzzword spin goes on. Its getting into GWB territory, where if you can link anything to "terror" that it might get some attention you think it deserves. Well, as Golda Meir said, "only terrorism is terrorism." And we get your point that we all hate Muslims yadda yadda.

Quote:

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Street gangs are not terrorists, inherently. They are members of organized crime. They fight each other, not society at large or the govt, nor do they fight for ideological or political reasons. They fight for money.

It might be better for everyone to review 'terror' as a political tool. Gangs, auto deaths, deaths from obesity all kill more people a year than the 9/11 attacks, but they are predictable by comparison.

What's at issue is the psychology of being attacked, at any time or in any place without rhyme or reason:

\t
Main Entrytreign of terror Pronunciation Guide
Etymologytfrom Reign of Terror, a period of the French Revolution between the executions of Louis XVI and Robespierre that was conspicuous for the mass executions of political suspects
1 : a state characterized by conditions (as violence, threats of violence, or actions as injurious as physical violence) that produce terror among the people involved <created a reign of terror throughout ... the state -- American Guide Series: Oregon> <no overt reign of terror among our intellectuals -- W.G.Carleton>
2 : a period of time during which such conditions prevail <gave ordinary prisoners some measures of confidence that the reign of terror ... was finished -- New York Herald Tribune>

The value of federal contracts awarded without competitive bidding has soared since President Bush took office in 2000, according to a new study to be released Monday by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Federal contracting grew from $203 billion in fiscal 2000 to $377 billion by fiscal 2005. During the same period, the value of federal contracts awarded without competitive bidding more than doubled, from $67 billion to $145 billion, the study found. At the same time, government oversight of contracting has weakened, according to the study's author, Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the center and a former House Democratic aide.

For example, the Defense Department is responsible for 80 percent of the overall federal contract growth during the five years under study. But the number of federal civilians employed by the department declined by about 2,000 in the same period. As a result, contractors have increasingly stepped in to fill the void -- to help the government decide its needs, draft contracts awarded to other private firms and then monitor their performance, the study found.

Federal contracts are big money -- they represent about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, about the same amount as the automotive industry. And because a growing chunk of that money is being handed to private companies without competitive bidding, it raises questions about whether taxpayers are getting the best deal and whether the contracting process has grown corrupt, Lilly said.

"There are clear indications that serious contract abuse has become a widespread problem affecting programs and agencies across the entire government and involving tens of billions of dollars in federal funds annually," according to the study.

-- Lyndsey Layton

Look, for almost thirty years we've been hearing about how the liberals under our beds were going to steal our money in the night and spend it on social programs!. Creeping communism! Welfare mothers and their crack babies who don't want to work! ...and so on, and on. Well, we were too clever for them...we gave our hundreds of billions to the nice men who hold stock in Halliburton, so they could keep it safe in their offshore bank accounts.

"Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report,"

I know the financial/energy markets decry infrastructure costs and security risks, but that to be expected. I think that this example fits just as well with everything else we all now know about Iraq, that it was an opportunistic decision of a few businessmen who see only the business side of the whole thing. And when I say businessmen, I don't mean your small business owner.

"Two scholars, one a Nobel Prize winner, revisit their estimate of the true cost of the Iraq war and find that $2 trillion was too low. They consider not only the current and future budgetary costs, but the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East."

<sarcasm>Yeah, , funny.</sarcasm>

Uhh...that's great Artman. Perhaps next time you could respond to the point I was actually making. I'll give you a C+ because you at least did the assignment.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Oh yes, and it's not like it's almost unprecedented for a former President to criticize the current one. Oh...and at least Carter wasn't an abject failure of President in every way imaginable. \

Not so great a President, but a great Humanitarian.
A Nobel Peace Prize is not an easy achievement.

I can't imagine what Bush's post Presidency will be like.
He most certainly won't be welcomed around the world which is what Carter's criticism was about.

He is the most arrogant imbecile ever elected President of the United States.

I am now getting Fox News and am amazed at the spin they put on things.
Bush can do no wrong there, comedy gold if it weren't for all the people that died, and continue to die, for basically nothing.

Except for the rich getting a lot richer, appointing inept cronies, people of the right persuasion eg., religion, qualifications not necessary, destroying World opinion, wrecking Iraq and perhaps the whole region, what in your mind makes him better than Carter.

Yeah really. Carter criticizing any President is like Donald Trump saying Bush has bad hair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by screener

Not so great a President, but a great Humanitarian.
A Nobel Peace Prize is not an easy achievement.

I can't imagine what Bush's post Presidency will be like.
He most certainly won't be welcomed around the world which is what Carter's criticism was about.

He is the most arrogant imbecile ever elected President of the United States.

I am now getting Fox News and am amazed at the spin they put on things.
Bush can do no wrong there, comedy gold if it weren't for all the people that died, and continue to die, for basically nothing.

Except for the rich getting a lot richer, appointing inept cronies, people of the right persuasion eg., religion, qualifications not necessary, destroying World opinion, wrecking Iraq and perhaps the whole region, what in your mind makes him better than Carter.

Yes, a great humanitarian. As for a Nobel, he shouldn't have won. He is responsible for a lot of the problems we have in the Mideast today.

We won't agree about Bush. I disagree with him on several issues, but it's too early to tell what his legacy will be.

I have no idea what you're talking about with Fox News. Apprently "doing no wrong" equals "not savaging the man unfairly on everything all the time."

Rich Getting Richer: Stupid rhetoric. Stupid.

Appointing Cronies: Agreed.

World Opinion: OK, but I think we care too much about it. I also think American and Bush-hating is chic right now.

Iraq: It's not in good shape. We wil have to see how it goes in the long term. I disagree that he's destroyed the whole region. The region is a mess and has been since the beginning of time.

What makes him better? How about a better economy? No major terror attacks since 9/11? Record stock market? Home ownership? Minority home and business ownership? Appointing blacks and women and hispanics to high positions within the admin?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

"The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found in a national survey that nearly 80% of Muslims in the USA say suicide bombings are never justified to 'defend Islam,' but nearly a quarter of those under 30 think such attacks are OK in some circumstances.

'It is a hair-raising number,' Radwa Masmoudi, head of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, tells the AP."

This doesn't surprise me. With tighter restrictions (Patriot Act) and other factors (discrimination) the younger Muslims in the US have much more to deal with. Some take it humorously, but others will direct the conduct against them with anger and dissent. The most extreme could take it further. But with terrorism, you never know until it happens.

"Al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting black Americans for suicide operations against the homeland, say FBI analysts who have reviewed recent videotaped messages from the terror group's leaders.

A speech released May 5 by Osama bin Laden's deputy confirms earlier fears that African-Americans are the No. 1 recruiting target for the next generation of attacks. Al-Qaida has been trying to lower its Arab profile to reduce the odds that its terror cells will be subjected to security scrutiny."

Well...that's scary. But remember this. The first Muslim terrorist attack on US soil was in 1993. The second in 2001. Eight years apart. For large scale, that is a logical amount of time between planning, training and carrying out something of those scales of attack. Of course if it is all a well-planned sequence of events by a cabal of Neo-Con nut-cases, you'll have to get sammi jo's take on that...

Ooooh...a clever little "you're a dumb teacher" insult coupled with another about not reading enough . Nice. Perhaps you are the epitomy of all examples in regard to our "failing educational system."

I was not educated in the US. English is my third language after German and French. I have enjoyed a level of education in "Real Gymnasium" that would be considered university level in the US before I turned 18.
Yet, I love the US as an example of all peoples communing.

Bush is truly and example of a failed educational system without focus on teaching students how to learn and understand.

"The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found in a national survey that nearly 80% of Muslims in the USA say suicide bombings are never justified to 'defend Islam,' but nearly a quarter of those under 30 think such attacks are OK in some circumstances.

'It is a hair-raising number,' Radwa Masmoudi, head of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, tells the AP."

This doesn't surprise me. With tighter restrictions (Patriot Act) and other factors (discrimination) the younger Muslims in the US have much more to deal with. Some take it humorously, but others will direct the conduct against them with anger and dissent. The most extreme could take it further. But with terrorism, you never know until it happens.

"Al-Qaida is aggressively recruiting black Americans for suicide operations against the homeland, say FBI analysts who have reviewed recent videotaped messages from the terror group's leaders.

A speech released May 5 by Osama bin Laden's deputy confirms earlier fears that African-Americans are the No. 1 recruiting target for the next generation of attacks. Al-Qaida has been trying to lower its Arab profile to reduce the odds that its terror cells will be subjected to security scrutiny."

Well...that's scary. But remember this. The first Muslim terrorist attack on US soil was in 1993. The second in 2001. Eight years apart. For large scale, that is a logical amount of time between planning, training and carrying out something of those scales of attack. Of course if it is all a well-planned sequence of events by a cabal of Neo-Con nut-cases, you'll have to get sammi jo's take on that...